Newman, Jr. v. AECIQ, 2:24-cv-01204

Newman filed a putative class action alleging that AECIQ made pre-recorded calls to cell phones without consent, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The case is at the discovery stage, prior to class certification, with a discovery deadline set for June 16, 2025.
Newman filed a motion to compel discovery, arguing AECIQ was not responding to interrogatories and requests for production relevant to class certification and the merits.
AECIQ provided mostly boilerplate, non-specific objections or noncommittal responses to most requests and argued some discovery was premature.
The court reviewed objections and found them unspecific and unsupported, especially given the impending close of discovery.
The court granted Newman’s motion to compel in full and ordered AECIQ to respond by June 13, 2025, warning of potential sanctions for noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Production of call logs and outbound call data	Necessary to demonstrate class certification requirements	Discovery is premature; will produce after class certified	Compelled immediate production; objections were inadequate
Identification of vendors/third parties	Information critical to case and class certification	Offered to supplement but gave no specific objections	Compelled full and prompt responses
Complaints and DNC (Do Not Call) requests	Relevant to claims of improper telemarketing	Willing to confer, but noncommittal due to scope/time	Compelled complete response, deadlines approaching
Consent records and defense documentation	Entitled to all documents supporting consent defense	Boilerplate objections; offered to confer	Compelled full and timely production

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (defining broad scope of discovery relevance)
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (requiring specificity in objections to discovery)